Petitioner
Vernonia School District 47J
Respondent
Wayne Acton, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That a school policy mandating random drug testing for participants in interscholastic athletic programs did not violate Fourth Amendment prohibitions against illegal search and seizure.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Timothy R. Volpert, John A. Matterazzo, Davis Wright Tremaine
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Thomas M. Christ, John A. Wittmayer, Steven R. Shapiro
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia (writing for the Court), Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
26 June 1995
Decision
Upheld the school district's claim, vacating a judgement by the court of appeals and remanding the case for further proceedings in the court of appeals consistent with a finding that Vernonia's student athlete drug testing policy did not violate Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search andseizure.
Significance
The ruling represented another example of the Court interpreting the Fourth Amendment so as to enable authorities to act expeditiously against the use ofand trafficking in illegal drugs. Because of the compelling state interest incurbing illegal drug use among youth, and given the special status of both school authorities and student athletes, the Court ruled that random drug testing did not violate the constitutionally guaranteed privacy of participants in interscholastic sports programs.
Stimulus
Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s drug use, violence, and disciplinary problems in the nation's schools captured public attention as never before. During this period schools began routine searches of students for weapons, and confiscated a surprising array of firepower in this manner. Although some analysts reported that drug use among students had fallen from its high in the mid-to-late 1970s, public opinion equated increases in disciplinary problems inthe schools with student use of illegal drugs.
The Vernonia, Oregon, school system operated three elementary schools and onehigh school in the late 1980s. As is the case in many small towns, high school athletes in Vernonia enjoyed elevated social status and served as role models for their fellow students. Beginning in 1988, however, Vernonia school authorities began to notice a disturbing trend among their students. Many students, and particularly student athletes, were heard to discuss and seen to emulate the outward trappings of the "drug culture," and between 1988 and 1989 disciplinary referrals within the schools increased to twice the level seen inthe early 1980s. Vernonia's athletic coaches also began to suspect that useof illegal drugs was impairing the performance of their athletes, and had been responsible for several serious injuries.
Response
In an effort to counteract what was perceived as a rise of illegal drug use among its students, the Vernonia School District searched for an effective antidrug policy. Given the high prestige of student athletes, the school district decided to focus its antidrug abuse efforts within its interscholastic athletic programs. After consultation with the district's parents, a Student Athlete Drug Policy was adopted for implementation in the fall of 1989. The policy mandated that all participants in interscholastic athletic programs and their parents agree to submit to a drug search program involving an initial urinalysis at the beginning of the practice season and random urinalyses throughout the competitive year. The school district agreed not to make positive testresults public, and any athlete producing a positive test would be retestedbefore any action was taken. Upon a second positive result, the athlete's parents would be notified and the athlete would be given the choice of enteringa treatment program including weekly urinalysis or a two-year suspension frominterscholastic athletics. Vernonia's parents were nearly unanimously in favor of the policy.
An Invasion of Privacy?
James Acton, a seventh grade student, expressed his desire to play football for a Vernonia school in the fall of 1991. He and his parents refused to signthe required consent form, however, believing that submission to random drugtesting constituted an unreasonable invasion of Acton's privacy as guaranteedin the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The school district therefore forbade Acton from participating in interscholastic athletics, and Acton and his parents filed for an injunction against the school district in the district court. The district court heard the case but dismissed the Acton's claims, andthe matter proceeded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Thecourt of appeals reversed the ruling of the district court, finding that theVernonia School District's policy violated both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as provisions of the Oregon State Constitution. The school district then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments on 28 March 1995.
In Loco Parentis
In deciding this case, the Court noted the special status of students, who are voluntarily put under the authority of school personnel by their parents. As such, school officials function as de facto parents while students are in their charge, and there are no constitutional guidelines for nonviolentparental discipline of children to ensure order. The Court also observed that athletes engaged in team sports understand that they must voluntarily giveup some rights to privacy, given the communal nature of locker room facilities and team activities in general. Thus, in the Court's view, students in general, and student athletes in particular, may expect their activities to be subject to more scrutiny and have their behavior more circumscribed by school authorities than other individuals. As such, the Court ruled that Vernonia's policy did not violate the constitutional rights of students, and remanded thecase to the court of appeals for reconsideration.
The legal justification for this ruling was quite straightforward. Random drug testing of railroad employees had been deemed constitutional by the Court in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. (1989), given the state'scompelling interest in maintaining passenger safety by insuring that transportation employees are not working while under the influence of intoxicants. Furthermore, the Court held in Delaware v. Prouse (1979), that a particular search's validity under the Fourth Amendment "is judged by its intrusionon the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests." In this case the Court judged that the state's interest in discouraging drug abuse among students and maintaining order within the classroom was so compelling as to justify some abridgement of student's Fourth Amendment rights. With regard to Fourteenth Amendment prohibitionsagainst invasion of privacy, the Court ruled that, given the relative lack of privacy accepted by all participants in team sports, the additional intrusion represented by urinalysis was negligible. At any rate, the Court had already established in New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), that "students within the school environment have a lesser expectation of privacy than members of the population generally." Therefore the policy was deemed reasonable and acceptable under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Impact
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton at first glance seems to represent another instance of the Court's willingness to deny Fourth Amendment protection to criminals engaged in the illegal use of, or trafficking in, drugs. This appearance is misleading, however. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, was careful to point out that the legal status of students, and the equally unique social status and voluntary forfeiture of privacy accepted by student athletes, made this case unique and of limited use as a legal precedent.
Related Cases
Teenagers and the Availability of Drugs
Sources
Bureau of Justice Statistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics--1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Government, 1997.
Vernonia School District 47J
Respondent
Wayne Acton, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That a school policy mandating random drug testing for participants in interscholastic athletic programs did not violate Fourth Amendment prohibitions against illegal search and seizure.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Timothy R. Volpert, John A. Matterazzo, Davis Wright Tremaine
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Thomas M. Christ, John A. Wittmayer, Steven R. Shapiro
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia (writing for the Court), Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
26 June 1995
Decision
Upheld the school district's claim, vacating a judgement by the court of appeals and remanding the case for further proceedings in the court of appeals consistent with a finding that Vernonia's student athlete drug testing policy did not violate Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search andseizure.
Significance
The ruling represented another example of the Court interpreting the Fourth Amendment so as to enable authorities to act expeditiously against the use ofand trafficking in illegal drugs. Because of the compelling state interest incurbing illegal drug use among youth, and given the special status of both school authorities and student athletes, the Court ruled that random drug testing did not violate the constitutionally guaranteed privacy of participants in interscholastic sports programs.
Stimulus
Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s drug use, violence, and disciplinary problems in the nation's schools captured public attention as never before. During this period schools began routine searches of students for weapons, and confiscated a surprising array of firepower in this manner. Although some analysts reported that drug use among students had fallen from its high in the mid-to-late 1970s, public opinion equated increases in disciplinary problems inthe schools with student use of illegal drugs.
The Vernonia, Oregon, school system operated three elementary schools and onehigh school in the late 1980s. As is the case in many small towns, high school athletes in Vernonia enjoyed elevated social status and served as role models for their fellow students. Beginning in 1988, however, Vernonia school authorities began to notice a disturbing trend among their students. Many students, and particularly student athletes, were heard to discuss and seen to emulate the outward trappings of the "drug culture," and between 1988 and 1989 disciplinary referrals within the schools increased to twice the level seen inthe early 1980s. Vernonia's athletic coaches also began to suspect that useof illegal drugs was impairing the performance of their athletes, and had been responsible for several serious injuries.
Response
In an effort to counteract what was perceived as a rise of illegal drug use among its students, the Vernonia School District searched for an effective antidrug policy. Given the high prestige of student athletes, the school district decided to focus its antidrug abuse efforts within its interscholastic athletic programs. After consultation with the district's parents, a Student Athlete Drug Policy was adopted for implementation in the fall of 1989. The policy mandated that all participants in interscholastic athletic programs and their parents agree to submit to a drug search program involving an initial urinalysis at the beginning of the practice season and random urinalyses throughout the competitive year. The school district agreed not to make positive testresults public, and any athlete producing a positive test would be retestedbefore any action was taken. Upon a second positive result, the athlete's parents would be notified and the athlete would be given the choice of enteringa treatment program including weekly urinalysis or a two-year suspension frominterscholastic athletics. Vernonia's parents were nearly unanimously in favor of the policy.
An Invasion of Privacy?
James Acton, a seventh grade student, expressed his desire to play football for a Vernonia school in the fall of 1991. He and his parents refused to signthe required consent form, however, believing that submission to random drugtesting constituted an unreasonable invasion of Acton's privacy as guaranteedin the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The school district therefore forbade Acton from participating in interscholastic athletics, and Acton and his parents filed for an injunction against the school district in the district court. The district court heard the case but dismissed the Acton's claims, andthe matter proceeded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Thecourt of appeals reversed the ruling of the district court, finding that theVernonia School District's policy violated both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as provisions of the Oregon State Constitution. The school district then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments on 28 March 1995.
In Loco Parentis
In deciding this case, the Court noted the special status of students, who are voluntarily put under the authority of school personnel by their parents. As such, school officials function as de facto parents while students are in their charge, and there are no constitutional guidelines for nonviolentparental discipline of children to ensure order. The Court also observed that athletes engaged in team sports understand that they must voluntarily giveup some rights to privacy, given the communal nature of locker room facilities and team activities in general. Thus, in the Court's view, students in general, and student athletes in particular, may expect their activities to be subject to more scrutiny and have their behavior more circumscribed by school authorities than other individuals. As such, the Court ruled that Vernonia's policy did not violate the constitutional rights of students, and remanded thecase to the court of appeals for reconsideration.
The legal justification for this ruling was quite straightforward. Random drug testing of railroad employees had been deemed constitutional by the Court in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. (1989), given the state'scompelling interest in maintaining passenger safety by insuring that transportation employees are not working while under the influence of intoxicants. Furthermore, the Court held in Delaware v. Prouse (1979), that a particular search's validity under the Fourth Amendment "is judged by its intrusionon the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests." In this case the Court judged that the state's interest in discouraging drug abuse among students and maintaining order within the classroom was so compelling as to justify some abridgement of student's Fourth Amendment rights. With regard to Fourteenth Amendment prohibitionsagainst invasion of privacy, the Court ruled that, given the relative lack of privacy accepted by all participants in team sports, the additional intrusion represented by urinalysis was negligible. At any rate, the Court had already established in New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), that "students within the school environment have a lesser expectation of privacy than members of the population generally." Therefore the policy was deemed reasonable and acceptable under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Impact
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton at first glance seems to represent another instance of the Court's willingness to deny Fourth Amendment protection to criminals engaged in the illegal use of, or trafficking in, drugs. This appearance is misleading, however. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, was careful to point out that the legal status of students, and the equally unique social status and voluntary forfeiture of privacy accepted by student athletes, made this case unique and of limited use as a legal precedent.
Related Cases
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).
- New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
- Skinner v. Railway Executives' Association, 489 U.S. 602 (1989).
Teenagers and the Availability of Drugs
DRUG USE, TEENS According to material cited by the U.S. Department of Justice, for each year from 1984 to 1996, more than 82 percent of high-school seniors answered that it would be "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain marijuana if they wanted to.- About 20 percent of the class of 1984 stated that it would be fairly easy or very easy to obtain heroin, whereas more than 32 percent of the class of 1996 answered the same.
- Another study cited by the Justice Department found that in 1996, almost 55 percent of eighth graders stated that it would be fairly or very easy toobtain marijuana. More than 23 percent said it would be easy to buy LSD, andabout 20 percent answered the same for PCP (angel dust) and heroin.
Sources
Bureau of Justice Statistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics--1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Government, 1997.
Further Readings
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1990.
- Legal Information Institute and Project Hermes. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94590.ZS.html.
User Comments Add a comment…